alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18360]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-310-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

July 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets to be effective 
August 1, 1998.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to modify 
Natural's pro forma service Agreement and related tariff provisions 
governing discounting of rates to provide for certain types of volume-
related discounts. These revisions would be applicable to all of 
Natural's jurisdictional services. Natural is also proposing a tariff 
change to provide for greater flexibility in negotiating the allocation 
of revenues received from the replacement shipper when the original 
shipper releases capacity. These changes were made in response to and 
in conformity with certain determinations regarding contracting 
practices made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket 
No. RP96-184.
    Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
Natural's customers, interested state regulatory agencies and all 
parties set out on the official service list in Docket No. RP96-184.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18360 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**CH 3**

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP2.24. APPENDIX 2.24**

**OTHER CODES**

NUMBER OF CHARACTERS:	Variable

TYPE OF CODE:	Variable 

EXPLANATION:  This appendix provides the source, and other information, for codes used or referred to in this manual which are prescribed by other DoD publications and which are not republished in this manual.

References in this Appendix are linked to the authoritative sources from the Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office Website pages, unless otherwise specified, for the following publication categories.

1

**AP2.24-**

AP2.24-1

APPENDIX 2.24
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10(e)

                                   AMENDMENT
                                   ---------
                                        

     This Amendment to the Agreement, dated as of May 26, 1994, is made between
EMONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. (formerly known as Emons Holdings, Inc.), a
Delaware corporation with offices at 96 South George Street, York, Pennsylvania
17401 (together with any and all present and future affiliates and subsidiaries
thereof, the "Company"), and ALFRED P. SMITH, residing at 2555 Hepplewhite
Drive, York, Pennsylvania  17404 (the "Employee").  All capitalized terms
contained in this Agreement not otherwise defined herein have the meanings
defined in the Agreement, dated as of December 31, 1989, between the Company and
Employee (the "Agreement").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------
                                        
     The Company and Employee previously entered into the Agreement pursuant to
which the Company engaged Employee to continue employment with the Company and
the Company provided certain severance benefits to Employee in the event of a
termination of Employee's employment under certain circumstances.

     The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects
as provided herein.

                         =============================

     In consideration of the premises herein contained and of other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree
to amend the Agreement as set forth herein:

     1.  Amendment to Preamble.  The preamble is hereby amended by substituting
         ---------------------                                                 
"2555 Hepplewhite Drive" for "2650 Primrose Lane."

     2.  Amendment to Section 1.  Section 1 is hereby amended by substituting
         ----------------------                                              
"December 31, 1994" for "the starting date."

     3.  Except as herein specifically amended, all terms, covenants and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall be
performed by the parties thereto according to its terms and provisions.
<PAGE>
 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed ad delivered this
Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above stated.
 
                              EMONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.

                              By: /s/ Robert Grossman
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Name:  Robert Grossman
                                 Title: President



                              /s/ Alfred P. Smith
                              --------------------------------
                              Alfred P. Smith

                                       2
No. 10-10921.

#### William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Petitioner v. Cecilia R. Reynolds, Warden.

565 U.S. 804, 132 S. Ct. 375,

181 L. Ed. 2d 4,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6504.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept *5any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 707.
No. 10-7571.

#### Robert E. Hawkins, Petitioner v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1187, 131 S. Ct. 1038,

178 L. Ed. 2d 842,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 719.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### *State, Petitioner, v. Aldridge, Respondent,*

No. 92129-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71313-2-I, May 11, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1026. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6821
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP CHARLES BROWN, Reverend, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR91-250-WMN, CA-95-3387-WMN) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Charles Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown , Nos. CR-91-250-WMN; CA-95- 3387-WMN (D. Md. May 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 3(b)


                            AMENDED BUSINESS CERTIFICATE

              The undersigned hereby certify that a certificate of business
         under the assumed name 

                          EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES

         for the conduct of business at 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New
         York, was filed in the office of the County Clerk New York County,
         State of New York, on the 23rd day of August, 1961, under index
         number 6543/61; that the last amended certificate was filed on the
         10th day of June 1996, in the office of said County Clerk under
         index number 6543/61.

              It is hereby further certified that this amended certificate
         is made for the purposes of more accurately setting forth the
         facts recited in the original certificate or the last amended
         certificate and to set forth the following changes in such facts.

         DONALD A. BETTEX, residing at 700 Park Avenue, New York, New York
         10128 has been succeeded as a partner by JOHN L. LOEHR, residing
         at 286 Alpine Circle, River Vale, New Jersey 07675.

         The members of EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES now consist of:
         Stanley Katzman, John L. Loehr, and Peter L. Malkin.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have as of the 30th day
         of June, 1996 made and signed this certificate.



         _____________________              __________________
         DONALD A. BETTEX                   STANLEY KATZMAN


         __________________
         JOHN L. LOEHR











<PAGE>
<PAGE>


         State of New York ) 
                           : ss.:                                      
         County of New York) 

              On this 10th day of July, 1996, before me personally appeared
         DONALD A. BETTEX, JOHN L. LOEHR, and STANLEY KATZMAN, to me known
         and known to me to be the individuals described in and who
         executed the foregoing certificate, and they thereupon duly
         acknowledged to me that they executed the same.

                                            __________________
                                            Judy Love
                                            Notary Public
                                            State of New York
                                            No. 41-4877662
                                            Qualified in Queens County
                                            Commission Expires 11/17/96







































                                         -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,349<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (219)
<INVENTORY>                                     55,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         83,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,930
<SALES>                                          9,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,807
<CGS>                                            5,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,257
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<FN>
<F1>Balance includes $480 of restricted cash.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2015016EN.01002402.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA

(Case C-208/14) (1)

(2015/C 016/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---
# C_2013344EN.01006301.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/63

---

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

(Case T-499/13)

2013/C 344/116

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTER SCHEDULING’ for goods in Class 9 — International registration No 1 093 837 designating the European Union

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
*Aug  2001 DRAFT*

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

# AP3.63. APPENDIX 3.63

# LOCAtion reconciliation notification

## 

**AP3.1-**2

	AP3.63-1	APPENDIX 3.63
STATE OF TENNESSEE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Mr. Robert Rogers, Technical Manager 

Pollution Control Section 

Shelby County Health Department 

814 Jefferson Ave., 4th Floor 

Memphis, TN 38105 

March 17, 2014 

Dear Mr. Rogers, 

Certified Article Number 

7196 9008 9111 1548 3797 

SENDERS RECORD 

The Air Pollution Control Division would like to provide the following comments 

regarding Shelby County's revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) that is 

currently out for public notice. With regards to the OSP (off-set plan), we submit the 

following comments: 

1. The emissions in Table 1 reflect tons/day. The discussion references tons/year. 

How were the tons/year derived? Was a model run conducted to generate the 

emissions in tons/year? 

2. Does the point source inventory for 2021 reflect all changes to the point source 

sector (other than Cleo Inc.) that have occurred since the second half of the 

maintenance plan was originally submitted? Have other industries expanded or 

shut down since this maintenance plan was last submitted? If so, are those 

changes to the emissions inventory reflected here? If not, why not? 

3. Page 11, 1st paragraph, the third sentence seems to indicate that there are 

reductions of NOx and VOCs from point sources, which is not borne out by the 

tables. ln the second paragraph, the safety margins allocated to the MVEB do 

not appear to match the information in Table Ill. 

4. The emissions inventory does not show interim emissions estimates between 

2006 and 2021 . 

5. The documentation lacked information on how the inputs for the MOVES model 

were developed. 

6. What was the source of the VMT used? What are the VMT for each of the 

analysis years? 
7. What version of the MOVES database was used? 

8. How was the source type population developed and adjusted over time? 

9. How were the compliance factors in the IM inputs calculated? 

10. Why is the endModeiYear 2002 in the 2006 IM input file? Did the 4 year 

exemption apply then? When did the change to the ordinance for the 4 year 

exemption take effect? 

11 . The last paragraph on page 9 seems to indicate that the MVEBs did not change 

as provided in the 2010 ozone maintenance plan. Is this true? Table Ill and 

subsequent discussion do not agree with this statement. 

12. Table Ill has a column indicating 'On-Road Allocation Percent'- these values 

appears to be a fraction, not a percent. The last column states that this is the 

"On-Road Safety Margin"; the safety margin identified in 40 CFR 93.101 

indicates that any safety margin is not explicitly for onroad- it is the overall 

safety margin, some of which (95% in this case) is being applied towards the 

MVEB. The column headings are somewhat confusing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revisions to the maintenance plan. 

Sincerely, 

~!Director pHens PE 

2
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No. 333-73196) and Form S-8 (No. 333-96499) of ElkCorp (formerly Elcor Corporation) of our reportdated August 30, 2004, except for changes in presentation as noted in footnotes titled“Discontinued Operations” and “Financial Information by Company Segments,” as to which the date isAugust 30, 2005, relating to the financial statements and our report dated August 30, 2004 relatingto the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  Dallas, Texas
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0130 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TOMMY JONATHAN SETH DELLAR,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 20 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 13 2023

11/13/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0130
No. 10-11133.

#### Steven Crockett, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 219,

181 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6564.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 418 Fed. Appx. 239.
Protect Your Baby 

Get Tested 

for Syphilis

Syphilis is an infection mothers 

can pass to their unborn 

babies. It can make babies 

very sick, cause them to have 

ongoing health issues, and in 

some cases can lead to death. 

Syphilis can be cured 

with the right medicine. 

If it is not treated, 

syphilis can pass from 

mother to baby. 

This is called 

congenital syphilis.

It’s best to get tested 

for syphilis 3 times

during your pregnancy.
Get Tested

as Soon as Possible

You may not know you have syphilis. 

Anyone who has sex can get syphilis. Many people with 

syphilis do not have any symptoms. The only way to 

know is to get tested.

You should get tested 3 times during 

your pregnancy:

1. At your first doctor’s visit or as soon 

as possible during pregnancy 

• Even if you’ve been tested for syphilis in 

the past, you should be tested when you 

become pregnant.

• If you have syphilis, your sex partners 

need to be tested and treated too, or 

you might get it again.

2. During your third trimester 

(or 3 months before your due date) 

• It is possible to get syphilis later in 

pregnancy or again, so you should 

get tested a second time when you’re 

around 28 weeks pregnant.

3. At the hospital when you have 

your baby

• It is possible to get syphilis later in 

pregnancy or again, so testing at 

delivery is very important.

1

2

3
Quick Treatment

Can Protect Your Baby

If you have syphilis, you need to be treated 

right away.

To make sure 

your baby 

does not get 

syphilis, it is 

important 

to get your 

medicine 

as soon as 

possible. 

If you miss appointments, your medicine 

might not work as well. 

Sometimes, medicine can be given one time 

right when you find out you have syphilis.

Sometimes, you may have to go to a different 

doctor to get your medicine or come back 

for more doses.

Let your doctor or nurse know if you can’t 

get your medicine for any reason. They will 

work to get you the medicine you need to 

stay healthy and protect your baby.

The 

consequence 

of untreated 

congenital 

syphilis is 

too high.

Without medicine, 

congenital syphilis can cause:

• A baby to be born early 

or small 

• A baby to have lifelong 

health problems

• Miscarriage, stillbirth, 

or newborn death
If you’re pregnant, get tested 

for syphilis as soon as possible.

Visit https://gettested.cdc.gov/ 

or contact your 

local health department:

Your baby’s health Get tested for depends on your health.

syphilis today.